Talk:Min (god)

Accuracy

There is, in my opinion, a whole lot of unsubstantiated "facts" in this article. In particular (though there are others!), this claim:

Due to an Egyptian military ritual in which prisoners were raped anally, so as to ensure their subjugation

This also:

Originally, Min was the constellation Orion

Does anyone have any mainstream, scholarly sources or Egyptian textual evidence to support these assertions? —Nefertum17 05:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

N.b. please don't leave spaces at the start of paragraphs, as it makes wikipedia try to fit the entire thing on one line, and you get huge browser windows - I have adjusted this.

There is quite a bit suggesting Min was Orion, in particular, the fact that the usual image of Min is a pretty good image for the constellation Orion - with the phallus becoming what we think of as Orion's belt, the unusual long headdress becoming what we view as the right arm, and the left arm of course is exactly identical (which is quite a good clue since it is otherwise an unusual angle), and the torso only going along Orion's left hand side - Min is depicted side-on. It is also important that the hieroglyphic texts and others, seem to think it special to point out that Min is He of the outstretched arm rather than He with his other hand on his penis, since the outstreched left arm is one of the most significant things about Orion. Also, Orion had a great significance in ancient culture, being as how it was one of the only things in the sky that was totally clearly looking like an actual person, and certainly the largest.

The anal rape thing is alluded to in hundreds of ancient documents, and since homosexuality wasnt such a big thing then, it wasnt anywhere near as shocking as it would have been percieved now. The lecture notes I have about this don't actually mention anyone specific, and I just remember the lecturer stating it as if it was a generally accepted view, rather than anything controversial.

I wasn't talking about homosexuality. I was questioning your assertion that there is an "Egyptian military ritual in which prisoners were raped anally, so as to ensure their subjugation". If there are "hundreds of ancient documents" referring to this "ritual", I am sure it will be easy for you or someone else to cite one. Secondly your claim that "Originally, Min was the constellation Orion" is also, as far as I know, without basis beyond a superficial visual similarity. If there is a text referring to Sah (Egyptian for "Orion") with Min, I would be most interested in hearing it. You might want to take a look at:

• Wilkinson, Richard Herbert. 1991/1992. "Ancient Near Eastern Raised-arm Figures and the Iconography of the Egyptian God Min." Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 11:109–118.

And if you don't mind, please sign your comments with the ~~~~ code. Thanks -Ril-i! —Nefertum17 21:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

In what way is the resemblence superficial? Since Orion is merely a collection of dots of varying brightness, it is difficult to see how something which matches the layout of the dots could have any more requirement put upon it. The left-arm-pose Min appears in is a particularly awkward one, and there is no plausible reason for it, other than it being because that is how Orion happens to be. Min and Sah have quite distinct attributes, as would be expected if Min was from those who thought Orion was in profile, and Sah was from those who thought Orion was in portrait.

Since they developed seperately, eventually gaining other different characteristics, I find the idea of a text going Sah=Min to be very unlikely to exist, even if they were both Orion. Indeed, should it be true, I think it unlikely, given the ancientness of Min, that there would ever be a text going Min=that-constellation-of-the-giant-man-who-the-greeks-name-orion-in-3000-years. Consequently, if I ask my old tutors, even if they were willing to give me time (which I doubt, as they tend not to help non-students), I suspect little would be found whatever the factual ituation.

Oh, urm, the 100s of documents insinuate rather than refer. Nothing that I have been told about explicitely states "prisoners were raped", they merely use such language that the conclusion is obvious.

By the way, the door bolt theory is quite interesting as well, although I am unsure quite how that identification could be considered to explain how he came to be a sky god and god of rain in the early centuries of egypt - Orion is a much better (i.e. more simple, requires less extra assumptions, explains more aspects) explanation for this. However, i the peer review of it (which I am not sure how to find) is favourable, I think it may be worth coming back to.

~~~~

I can't find any reference to Min and Orion - in fact the whole article focuses on this whilst ignoring other attributes - I am going to delete large sections because this article is so far from accuracy that I am stunned that no-one has changed it already.Apepch7 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

During a visit to the Karnac temple we were told that Min originally was a common man that refused to join a war. He stayed behind in his village. When the men came back from the war their viwes were all pregnant. They knew who was responsible and cut off one arm and one leg as a punishment. Min is always depicted with one arm and one leg. Somehow he got cred for his deeds and was appointed to a fertility God. Tommolla (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC) / tommolla

"Military Ritual"

I removed the following:

Due to an Egyptian military ritual in which prisoners were raped anally, so as to ensure their subjugation, some war-goddesses were even depicted with the body of Min (including the phallus), and this also lead to depictions ostensibly of Min, but with the head of a lioness. This ritual also appears in the myth of the battle between Set and Horus, indicating that aside from emotional pressure, the rape may have legally and theologically been considered to confirm the subjugation.

When (and if) any evidence for the existance of such a "ritual" is provided from a primary Egyptian source, this claim could then be reinserted. Until that time, in my opinion it need not be in the article as it now stands. —Nefertum17 20:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• I just pulled the same paragraph again, notwithstanding the fact that the best Ril has come up with is:

Oh, urm, the 100s of documents insinuate rather than refer. Nothing that I have been told about explicitely states "prisoners were raped", they merely use such language that the conclusion is obvious

Sorry, but you have to do better than that for an encyclopedia when presenting so grandiose a claim as fact; if you're not going to furnish any cite for your claim, I'd be inclined to call it original research. Codex Sinaiticus 03:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

heading for another dispute?

Ril, "Ham" (with an H) is only the English form; the original Hebrew form of "Ham" was the same sound as in Khem... you will often see the Hebrew transcribed as "Cham" and in sources older than 1800, Ham's name almost always appears as "Cham" - Ch being used to represent the very same thing it does in "Chem"... Arguing that Ham must have come from Khem and not vice versa is therefore a non-argument; or at best a POV I do not share. Since both start with the same sound in the original languages, Khem could just as easily have come from Cham. There is plenty of back-and-forth attested between Kh and Ch (not the English "Ch" sound, but a raspy velar) going in both directions. Remember that in Ethiopia the name of Ham ended up as "Kam", and that could well be the original of all these other forms. Aside from that, if you insist on writing "LORD" (as it appears in the text) as "lord", while capitalising all of these idols' names, you can rest assured that you're going to get a "totally disputed" pov tag. Codex Sinaiticus 19:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Tanakh vs. Torah

I just changed the reference to the torah to the tanakh. There is a difference! torah is Just the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Dueteronomy), Whereas the tanakh has Torah, Nevi'im, and ketuvim. ISaiah is in Nevi'im. I learned this at my jewish religeous school a few months ago. Nevi'im is not in the torah! Dmrk1201 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maung?

Where does this version of the name come from? I have never heard of this. Also I can find no reference to the identity with Orion - I know it was discussed above but it is not referenced at all.Apepch7 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm going to remove it - !Apepch7 17:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

'Sex'

Quite amusingly, 'min' (מין) is Hebrew for 'sex'. Should this be added? Siúnrá (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Briliant

“coming forth” ... ;) - please no one edit that out. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ 06:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs)

Min Temple, Coptos

No mention of the Min Temple at Coptos discovered by Flinders Petrie? The remains of three Min statues shown in the Ashmolean Museum are regarded by some as the earliest known monumental statues.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt//3d/coptos/coptos1.html
http://herboyves.blogspot.de/2015/03/egypte-les-mysteres-des-debuts.html
--BjKa (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed from the article

I removed this passage from the article because it's unsourced. I'm not sure what the first part of it is even supposed to mean. The etymology of Akhmim may well be true but is unsourced. A. Parrot (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

In the 19th century, there was an alleged erroneous transcription of the Egyptian for Min as ḫm ("khem"). Since Khem was worshipped most significantly in Akhmim, the separate identity of Khem was reinforced, Akhmim being understood as simply a corruption of Khem. However, Akhmim is an alleged corruption of ḫm-mnw, meaning Shrine of Min, via the demotic form šmn.